I'm hoping to create a dialog between a Christian anarchist and a defender of taxation.
I simply can't imagine any good arguments in favor of taxation, so if you can think of
some, please email me. I have numbered the
conversation so you can tell me which line you wish to contribute.

Background

Christian Anarchism is the belief that we are to love our neighbors -- and even our
enemies -- as Christ loved us. Christian Anarchists believe that Christ is the one True
King, and all earthly kings are usurpers. God nowhere commanded men to form "the
State." Everything the State does is a violation of God's Law.

Everybody understands that if I came up to you and demanded your money, and threatened
to lock you up in my basement with a carjacker and a homosexual rapist for an extended period of time if you refused to give me
what I wanted, I would be guilty of violating the
Eighth Commandment ("Thou shalt not steal")
and threatening to violate the Sixth Commandment
(depriving you of your life or liberty if you don't cough up). Thus, everything the State
does is financed by extortion.

Even if Jesus counseled you to pay up, turn the other cheek, or go the second mile,
that would not change the character of my action. I would still be doing evil, even if
Jesus said "Resist not evil"
(Matthew 5:39). "Thou shalt not steal" means "taxation
is theft" -- unless there is some extraordinary
dispensation from God which allows men to call themselves "the State" and
proceed to steal with impunity.

The Conversation

As a Christian Anarchist, I believe taxation is theft. God says "thou shalt not
steal."

But the Bible says we are to pay our taxes (Romans 13).

Yes, but that does not make taxing people morally legitimate. Jesus also says we are to
"turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). That does not make cheek-slapping moral.
When Jesus refers to the cheek-slapper, He says "Resist not

evil." Cheek-slapping is a sin and taxation is a sin.
We are to "submit" to both.

Consider Jesus' parable of the Good
Samaritan. When he found someone on the highway in desperate need, did he use his own
money to help the victim, or did he rob the next passerby to get money to help the victim
of the first robbery?

But what if the Good Samaritan didn't have
any money to help? That's why we have government.

But where does the government get the money to help?
Doesn't it take it from those who DO have money?

-

Shouldn't those who DO have the money be taught the
basic rudiments of charity and hospitality
so that they can help the needy in a personal way, rather than simply remaining passive
and allowing the State to take their money and give it to the needy in an impersonal way?

If all the money currently confiscated by the State
were simply passed out to those under the poverty level, every single man, woman and child
in poverty would receive a check for nearly $10,000.

Everyone from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton seems to agree. Our
welfare system is a disaster. It's in desperate need of reform.

Currently, we are spending more than $350 billion a year on 79
means-tested federal welfare programs. That's more than we spend on national defense.
Theoretically, we could take that money and give $8,939 to every poor person in America,
or $35,756 to a family of four.

Since 1965 we have spent $5 trillion on the War on Poverty,
measured in 1992 constant dollars. Yet the poverty rate is higher today than it was the
year the War on Poverty began. How can we spend so much and achieve so little?

Why should we send our money to Washington, let
bureaucrats suck off their cut, and delude ourselves into thinking that we are being
"charitable" or "compassionate" when someone in poverty receives an
impersonal, faceless welfare check?

Compassion comes from two Latin words meaning "to
suffer with." Yet liberalism does not encourage taxpayers to be "with" the
poor in any meaningful way.

The purpose of taxation is

Power for the Providers, not

Empowerment of the Needy (to become self-sufficient), nor

Empowerment of Taxpayers (to spontaneously care for the needy from their heart and out
of their own wallet).

If you see a person in need

You should help him personally.

If you can't afford to help him, you should find someone who can afford to help
and persuade him or her to give voluntarily to the
cause of the needy.